Connect with us

The Swamp

Trump Reinstates Feds’ Power Over Local Police Departments In Major Deep State Win

Published

on

Trump caves in to unions and military elites, ignoring the lessons passed on to us by America’s Founding Fathers.

President Donald Trump just lifted a ban on the transfer of military surplus equipment to local police departments that had been put in place by the Barack Obama administration.

While Obama’s action was far from sound, as he failed to address the root of the police militarization problem when he blocked armored vehicles and other heavy military grade equipment from being shipped to local police departments, Trump’s actions seem to, again, go against the core principle his campaign seemed to rely on. Instead of “making America great again” by going back to the principles championed by the Founding Fathers, Trump decided to cave in to the powerful within the military industrial complex and police union ranks using “public safety” as an excuse.

Trending: Female Christian ‘Pastor’ Rejects the Truth of Christ, Says It is ‘Holy’ to Sell Porn Pics on OnlyFans

What he seems to miss, even as a self-styled “America First” president, is that when power is removed from the American communities and police departments are allowed to seek bribes from the federal government, it’s the small town American Joe who voted for him who hurts the most.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Police militarization has, over the years, become a prop for left-leaning activists. But much like with anything else many of them embrace as an issue, they often miss the mark, frequently attributing their problems to vague ideas of what police brutality is and asking for more federal government interference as a means to have the problem solved.

But without looking at the history of police militarization and what’s at stake, we cannot understand what needs to be done to address both the right’s fears revolving the growing power the federal government has over local policing and the left’s fears regarding police brutality.

History shows us that the lessons America’s Founders learned while under British rule helped them draft the U.S. Constitution with a Bill of Rights that enshrines the Castle Doctrine. With roots that can be traced to antiquity and more recently to British common law, the doctrine maintains that “a man’s home is his castle.” As such, the Third and Fourth Amendments were put in place to keep the suspicious sentiment our Founders nurtured against standing armies alive and to protect a person’s home or anything he occupies, shielding the proprietor from prosecution if he uses deadly force to protect his “castle.”

Most importantly, perhaps, is that the Founders knew the Roman Republic had been overthrown by power-thirsty military leaders.

Seeing members of the British army take over the homes of hard-working Americans during the American Revolution, the Founders remained suspicious of powerful military forces and yes, martial law, deciding to make sure the law of the land would thus serve as a reminder to future Americans that local policing works best if run my communities themselves — not an all mighty federal bureaucracy.

As incremental changes over the centuries continued to give the executive greater power and control over the lives of ordinary Americans across all states, something even greater went down in the 1960s, when President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed 19 people to run his Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA).

Tasked with changing the U.S. criminal justice system and “[streaming] the federal funding, equipment, and technology to state and local law enforcement agencies,” as author Radley Balko put it in the Rise of The Warrior Cop, the creation of LEAA would later serve as a precedent for programs such as the Pentagon’s 1033 program and the Byrne grants, helping the executive to, in a sense, bribe local police forces to adopt their policies.

In essence, this move, along with Johnson’s creation of the Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD), would also give President Richard Nixon the weapons he needed to launch a major war on drugs that would finally put an end to the Castle Doctrine protections enshrined in the Constitution by the Founders. In no time, federal rules restricting gun rights were being forced upon local law enforcement, as well as other rules concerning surveillance, no-knock raids, and confiscation of private property without due process.

As you can see, Trump could have looked at the ban on the transfer of military surplus equipment as a failure of the Obama administration, as the former president was incapable of addressing an issue that goes well beyond the current militarization problem.

With a powerful military industrial complex, or “deep state,” apparently calling the shots in Washington, D.C., and police unions lobbying the administration for weapons used by the U.S. military solely for wars, Trump is failing to cut the federal government’s influence with local police departments. As the Founders feared, standing armies are now, once again, allowed to flourish under him or any other president who follows. And with so much material to bribe local authorities with, there will be no department or sheriff’s office left when the feds come knocking, demanding their help on whatever new unconstitutional power grab they are after.

 

 

 

 

The Swamp

Swamp Bureaucrats Try to Oust America First USAID appointee

Disgruntled bureaucrats.

Published

on

Bureaucrats at a division of the U.S. Agency for International Development that focuses on conflict prevention are fuming about their new boss.

In fact, they’re so angry that they drafted a lengthy memo detailing their grievances with the aim of getting the Trump administration to take action on their behalf, according to a report by Politico.

The disgruntled officials’ 13-page memo singles out Pete Marocco, the head of USAID’s Bureau for Conflict Prevention and Stabilization.

A USAID official stated that a small group of veteran staffers drafted the memo in the bureau’s Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI). Marocco has voiced his skepticism towards a lot of programs this division runs, which is in line with the America First reluctance of embracing foreign aid programs.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The memo portrays Marocco as a micromanager who has thrown several wrenches into the bureau’s operations. In addition, the memo accuses Marocco of marginalizing employees and being vague about his orders that are allegedly difficult to implement. According to the complaint, “thousands of hours of staff time” have been “spent unnecessarily and unproductively.”

Furthermore, the complaint alleged that Marocco “has leveraged once-routine administrative processes to reopen previously-approved plans, interrogate and redirect country programs, halt movement on programs, procurements, and people, and inject uncertainty into daily operations and office planning.“ In addition, it contended that Marocco “has eschewed providing direction in writing or through other formal channels, and rarely sent guidance to teams directly implicated. Instead, he has conveyed orders and decisions, sometimes only orally, to individual staff … who then must attempt to relay this information as best they can to colleagues. This has inevitably generated significant confusion over intent and expectations, and made it difficult to confirm decisions or maintain adequate records.”

One of the more unheralded aspects of President Donald Trump’s ascendancy into the White House has been his skepticism towards the efficacy of foreign aid, which has traditionally been plagued with corruption. According to the Brookings Institute, the U.S. government spent roughly $39.2 billion on foreign aid in 2019, with very little results to show for it.

Overall, officials like Marcocco were appointed with the task of re-orienting USAID’s priorities, which ruffled many feathers.

For example, Marocco was against a $2 million extension of an OTI program in Ukraine that senior USAID and State Department officials werenin favor of. The proposal to extend the program has been sitting on Marocco’s desk waiting for the greenlight since he assumed the position in July, according to the complaint. On two occasions he has called for canceling this program and made a request to find out how much the cancellation process would cost. Politco reported that Marocco “hasn’t said what he would want to do instead with the money besides “do something ‘important’ like train and equip the military or police, or work on security sector reform,” according to the memo, which notes that the first suggestion is prohibited by law, while the second is not a USAID priority in Ukraine.”

It’s clear that Marocco is no swamp creature and does not believe in just doling out money to corrupt countries. An America First foreign aid policy would be one of minimal to no foreign aid, and people like Marocco make it easier for us to achieve that goal.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending